Search This Blog

Wednesday, 30 June 2010

The proof that homeopathy works is seen in its outcomes, its ability to make patients better. It is not within the narrow confines of the denialists view of science, based on Randomised Controlled Tests (RCT) that count with patients! It is what happen to sick people when they are treated - conventionally, homeopathically, et al.

This series of blogs has brought out the medical fundamentalists, the denialists, and the homeophobes! “There is no scientific proof” they scream, there is “no RCT evidence” They have said that “these stories are anecdotal”. And they do so just in case anyone diagnosed with cancer reads the testimony of the 3 contributors and prefers homeopathy to ConMed’s chemotherapy and radiation. They even claim that “it is dangerous for these people to make such claims”, that they are denying themselves, and others, the benefits of ConMed treatment!

But ConMed often makes similar ‘anecdotal claims, based on the evidence of individual patients, and do so in order to sell their noxious drugs and vaccines. Homeopaths do not attack them for doing so. There is room here for a careful consideration of the evidence, and some proper comparative analysis.

What the presentation of these cases demonstrate is that is potential in homeopathy for the treatment of people with cancer, and the extent of the denial that is endemic within ConMed Establishment. Indeed, medical fundamentalists will rather admit to making serious diagnostic mistakes than entertain the idea that homeopathy might have helped! Moreover, they will do so despite the fact that the three former patients themselves are convinced that they overcame cancer primarily because of homeopathy.

It is frightening that such people, who like to call themselves ‘scientists’, do not even bother to keep an open mind. As Dana Ullman has said:

“The antagonists to homeopathy are threatened (philosophically, scientifically, economically), and their anger is deep because of this threat”.

What people need to understand is that there are many safer and more effective alternatives to ConMed treatment,for all disease, not just homeopathy, but techniques based on exercise, diet, life-style, attitudinal changes, and many other factors, from which the Big Pharma companies cannot make a profit.

However, of greater concern are the patients who are being, and will continue to be diagnosed with cancer. What options to they have? Within the NHS, they are routinely given just one option - ConMed treatment. Rarely, if ever, are alternatives offered to them. Indeed, anyone who chooses an alternative path are subject to criticism, and even ridicule.

Central to this debate is patient choice, something the denialists are keen to avoid giving us within the NHS. This blog is committed to patient choice, and the availability of information about safe and effective treatments for all disease.

Tuesday, 29 June 2010

One reason for this series of blogs is to demonstrate that ConMed apologists will not acknowledge the personal experiences of people diagnosed with cancer, and who have got better after homeopathic treatment. Imagine the kind of hype that the Big Pharma companies would come up with if they were able to come up with that sort of outcome that Kevin Morris experienced! They would be claimng the discovery of a 'wonder drug', selling it for enormous amounts, and saying they were on the way to being able to treat cancer successfully.

Homeopathy makes no such claims. But examples like the 3 given in this blog do suggest that people with cancer, certainly those who have been given up on by ConMed, should seek the individualised treatment offered by Homeopathy.

Moreover, the mainstream media would be reporting it as front page news! Kevin has written a book about his experience, and no-one is interested in publishing it! His attitude is simple, as implied by the title of his book - “It’s only a disease - how I fought cancer and won”, but as he says, the subject of recovering from cancer using alternative treatment is generally embargoed by the mainstream media.

This is a very short version of what happened to him, 12 years ago, in his own words.

In July 1998, and after at least a year of seriously ill health, I visited my GP who said he thought I had cancer, and arranged for me to undergo the usual tests. Early, and after two days spent having blood transfusions in order to get me fit enough, in early August 1998, it was found that my left kidney had 15 1/2 centimetre tumours. I was told later that month that there was an 80% or 90% chance of another tumour, either at the same site, and/or secondaries tumours elsewhere. I had a scan on 21st December that highlighted a new 4 centimetre tumour. I was then offered four options:

* Hormone therapy

* Interferon

* Interleukin

I was told that, in my oncologist's opinion, my tumour would not respond, and that therefore these treatments would only be ‘palliative’.

The fourth option was to 'Do nothing’. I was told that I might not live as long but that my quality of life would be better.

I told him that this was my preferred option. When he warned me that I was likely to be seriously ill quite soon, and in need of pain relief and/or drugs to treat the resultant cachexia, I told him I was seeing a homoeopath.

In his letter to my GP he stated, “Mr Morris has decided to explore some homeopathic options and I feel we must respect him in this”, or words to this effect.

I have not been to hospital since - except to visit friends, About two weeks after this meeting, my homoeopath prescribed Nat Carb 10m, a remedy which she has used with great success in terminal cancer cases. In just a few days afterwards I knew I would recover, and I happily told those I knew of my belief. Needless to say, most of them thought I was mad!

Kevin is now studying to become a homeopath, and he wants people to know about his experience so that other people are able to make informed choices. He shares my deep concern about the censorship imposed on such information by the mainstream media, a censorhip that means most people do not realise that there are good, effective, and safe alternatives to ConMed drugs for the treatment of all diseases.

What is, perhaps, more concerning is that ConMed practitioners do not usually tell their 'terminal' patients that an alternative treatment is available, or suggest that (as they can do nothing) they might like to try it.For the next blog in this series, click here.

Saturday, 26 June 2010

Homeopathy cures are often life-changing, ‘eureka’ moments. It was for me, someone who once believed that conventional medicine was effective and safe, and that it was capable of curing disease. It was just the same for Vaikunthanath Das Kaviraj, who has subsequently authored the brilliant book

and has become a leading expert on how homeopathy can help to enhance the growth of plants, and to remedy diseases in plants. This is his story, in his own words.

In the summer of 2005 I developed prostate cancer which was extremely painful. It felt like a knife was sticking in there and when urinating, the knife would go hot, like fire, and be twisted. I, of course, tried to find the remedy, but however much I tried, I failed. So ... it got so bad, I could no longer even think properly. This made me think of the remedy Conium, which did help a little for about 2 weeks.

In December 2005 I was lying down on the couch and prayed to God that if you want me to die, let it happen quickly. Then one day one of my students came at the door, who asked me what was the matter - she had not seen me in months... I explained and she said I should go to the hospital, to see what was the matter.

I have no health insurance - I have always treated myself successfully and see absolutely no need to pay for a non-service. She told me she knew of a hospital in Amsterdam, where I was living at the time, where people go who have no papers, no insurance and no legality.

So we went there and they took a sample of my urine, which was full of gram-negative bacteria, nitrates and cells they "could not identify"... So I said that she need not beat around the bush and tell me the truth - I had cancer. She admitted this and proceeded to tell me her regime of allopathic poisons she wanted to administer to me.

I asked her if she knew about their side effects... She admitted she did not. I told her she was not qualified to prescribe if she was ignorant about the effects of her medicine!. She asked what I would do instead. I told her I would see a homoeopath. She thought this was not very wise!

From the nitrates identified by the tests I already knew what remedy to use - Nitric acid. So I went home again and took the first dose of Nit.ac 12x. Within 5 minutes, the pain was gone and I could finally urinate properly. Over the course of the next 6 weeks, I took 3 doses of Nit Ac, and 2 doses of Carcinosin in-between.

I was feeling so well, I went back to the hospital for a check-up. They could not find anything at all - not by testing, not by taking x-rays, and not by echo scan. The doctor asked what I had taken. I told her Nitric acid and Carcinosin. The Nitric acid she could understand - more or less - but not the Carcinosin, especially when I told her the remedy I used was made of 58 different cancers.

"Oh, maybe we misdiagnosed" was her reply.

I was glad not to have taken her poisons! I just walked out of the office, laughing to myself. They always have some excuse to deny that homoeopathy works and can cure people with cancer.

ConMed never recommends homeopathy for people suffering cancer, even if they recognise that they cannot treat it themselves. They appear to be unwilling to accept that homeopathy can treat people with cancer, or even to consider the possibility that it might when presented with a case like this. Indeed ConMed (and the homeophobes who have already responded to this series of blogs) go to great lengths to explain how and why it just cannot do so. Worse, their allegedly ‘scientific‘ minds do not accept that such personal experiences are worth further investigati0n!

ConMed is dominated by medical fundamentalists who go to great lengths to explain why homeopathy cannot possibly work. Indeed, many respond with a hatred of homeopathy that can only be described as homeophobia! So they call homeopaths ‘witches’, they call remedies ‘sugar pills’, they dismiss the results we obtain as ‘placebo’, they denigrate homeopathic education; and they try to deny patients access to homeopathy through the NHS.

Friday, 25 June 2010

It is not possible for anyone to claim that homeopathy cure cancer? It is against the law! So look at the experience of Gemma, who recovered from cancer after ConMed practitioners had done whatever they could, and sent her home to die. She is still alive, and a valued colleague. Her story shows that ConMed has little to offer some cancer patients, and that if ‘failures‘ like Gemma recover they cannot, or will not, go on to admit that homeopathy has played any part in the recovery. These are Gemma’s own words. It is long, for a blog - but it is well worth reading. (Alternatively, watch it now on her own video).

"I was a school registrar in London, aged 26, when diagnosed with cancer. That was 1996. Previously, in July 1992, I had had a condition called hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. I had an operation for this and had made a good recovery. However, as time went on I began to get some alarming symptoms . My short-term memory was really bad at times, making my job very difficult. My eyesight got worse, so that I would bump into things sometimes and I would sleep so deeply so that I could not be woken. Strangely, these symptoms would come and go and I had them checked by a doctor.

My GP in 1993 referred me to St Bartholomew’s Hospital where I had a brain scan. I was told there was nothing wrong with me... but ... my symptoms were getting worse. Later that year, I asked my GP for another referral and in June 1994 and I had another brain scan at Kings College Hospital. It revealed a growth in the middle of my brain. I was assured that this did not need any treatment because it was so small – the size of the little finger.

However in January 1996 I was told at Kings College that I had a few tumors but they were benign. They were too deep to operate on and I was advised to have a brain biopsy. I was then informed that I should have radiology treatment at St Bartholomew’s. It was terrifying. I had to lay face down on a table and have a mask bolted down over my face, so that I would stay perfectly still whilst the treatment took place. At my first appointment, the treatment was about to begin when the radiologist burst through the door and shouted "stop". The treatment could not proceed. They had discovered more tumors down my spine.

I then had to be marked up on my back with a pen - to let the radiographers know where the tumors were so they could direct the radiology on my spine as well as on my head. I was often violently ill after the treatments and all my hair fell out in one weekend...

Months later the results showed the radiology had removed the tumors from my spine but this was not enough. The radiologist advised me to have chemotherapy. My trust was in their hands ... "Doctor knows best".

I returned to the hospital and along with the chemotherapy, I had huge doses of steroids, aimed at preventing any more inflammation or growth of the tumours.In four weeks I had put on four stones in weight, I did not recognize myself in the mirror. My eyesight was getting worse, I had double vision, could only see an arms length away and even that was all fuzzy.My eyelids did not open voluntarily. I had to hold one eyelid up to see anything. When I could walk, I needed a stick. As things got worse I was issued with a wheel chair.

Friday, 13th October 1996 The consultant told me the treatment was making me worse and there was nothing more he or the hospital could do for me. He wished me all the best and said "have a very good Christmas". I realized ... his thinking was that it would be my last Christmas. In his report to my GP the consultant’s registrar wrote "I have explained the scan findings to Gemma and her mother. I have explained that chemotherapy has not helped since her disease has progressed during her treatment. I have also stressed that there are no other viable options for treating the disease but that treatment will now be directed at the symptoms".

I decided to go home to be looked after by my parents. That was my lucky turning point ... my sister-in-law called me. Her youngest daughter was having homoeopathic treatment for her eczema following which it had completely cleared up. Did I want to see this homoeopath?

I was a genuine sceptic of alternative medicine and anyway, I had cancer, not just a rash. How could plants and flowers help me? But I did not have anywhere else to turn, so I decided to "give it a go".

The homoeopath came to my parents’ house, as I was unable to visit her. She was very pleasant and kind, asked me lots of questions and gave me some very small white pills. Within a day or two some more bottles arrived which she described as organ remedies and one of those was a blood remedy. Miraculously, shortly afterwards, my blood-count rose which enabled me to avoid an already planned blood transfusion organized by my doctor. Things began to improve and I continued to see the homoeopath on a regular basis.

Gradually I weaned myself off the steroids, so my weight could begin to reduce. My energy improved and I found I was able to move around more easily. I began to feel like a human being again. After the blood test (the homeopath) (Janice) had put me on a detailed program. Personal counselling, meditation, relaxation, anger management were all part of the therapy. A detoxification plan was arranged. I had remedies to detox the effects of the many medications and the effects of the radiation. Diet and nutritional rebuilding were part of the program. Exercise, moderate at first, new interests and positive thinking were part of the homoeopathic treatment. I received fatty acid liquescence to provide a brain food and a blood tonic. Later I came to know it as omega 3 and 6. I remember the words "you must not waste your energy on being angry" and other such expressions from Janice.

In early 1997, one year after I had been sent home to die, I returned to London and moved back into the shared house I used to live in before my illness. I would still be extremely tired but I was independent again and that felt great ...

In June 1998 I telephoned St Bartholomew’s Hospital to make an appointment ... I saw the same consultant. He did a few tests and said that I had made a "remarkable recovery". He offered me a scan but I did not want one ... I told him about my homeopathic treatment and that I attributed the recovery to that. He walked across the room as if gathering his thoughts, then gave his opinion. He said my recovery was probably due to a delayed reaction to the chemotherapy.

... I controlled my anger and said nothing. It was just the very direct dismissal of my opinions that had raised my ire. Later when I read his letter to my GP I felt a bit better, it read "this young lady has made a remarkable recovery, a few ocular motor movements are her only abnormality. Gemma attributes her recovery to homeopathy and whether it is due to that or a delay in her 1996 chemotherapy remains a mystery. Nevertheless I am delighted to see her in such good health." He was less sure in his written word".

This is Gemma’s story, and I would expect homeophobes and medical fundamentalists to deny her experience! But you cannot deny the medical diagnosis, or her recovery.

Gemma studied for 4 years for her qualification in homeopathy, and she has been working as a homeopath for some 10 years now. What is Gemma’s conclusion now? This is what she says:

“Do not get me wrong, I know homoeopathy or nutrition cannot cure everyone, in fact I am convinced it will not. However, I am equally convinced it will help many people. For those, a minority who have the information (who have the vision and the money), they can go for private treatment, it is readily available. But the majority of patients with cancer and other chronic diseases suffer needlessly and many die at an early age. Having got a second chance at life, I feel duty bound, even passionate, to let others know that there are other choices. What I would love to see today is an integrated health service where complementary medicine and conventional medicine work hand-in-hand sharing their skills and giving better service and hopes to the many patients out there.

One sad note, her homeopath died in 2006. She was a special person and had been in active practice for twenty years and contributed to the health of many people. Her work was key to my second chance”.

Thursday, 24 June 2010

I have recently been in contact with two ‘cancer survivors’, and their stories are worth telling. Therefore the next 4 blogs will focus on homeopathy and cancer. It will make no claims that “homeopathy cures cancer”, but will centre around the two cases, were in each ConMed diagnosed terminal cancer, the patients were treated homeopathically, and both got better.

Conventional Medicine often make claims that its drugs can treat cancer, even though there is little or no evidence that it does. Certainly there is little convincing evidence beyond (at best) giving the patient a few additional months of life. But to the extent that it does even this it does so at huge financial cost, and usually at great personal cost in terms of the suffering caused by the treatment.

Many patients with diagnosed cancer seek help from homeopathy, not wanting to go through the well-known additional suffering caused by chemotherapy and radiation treatment. When they do so, and die, medical fundamentalists say that ‘homeopathy killed them’, the implication being twofold:

1. that the diagnosed cancer didn’t kill them, and

2. that their lives could have been saved had they accepted ConMed treatment.

This makes it a good opportunity for Conventional Medicine fundemenatlists to claim that homeopathy is ‘dangerous’.

The two cases will demonstrate, at the very least, that more research should be done into the homeopathic treatment of cancer. Indeed, there is a strong case for the NHS to do some serious comparative research on outcomes, using Conventional Medicine, Homeopathy, and indeed other CAM treatments, with the treatment selected for each patient being on the basis of the their personal choices.

Unfortunately, the Conventional Medical monopoly will do no such thing. Indeed, they will usually insist that only their treatments will work and never mention the possibility that alternative treatments may be just, if not more effective, and certainly less traumatic.

And of course the army of denialists (some of whom regularly litter this blog with their denials) will just dismiss the two cases as ‘anecdotal’ and ‘unscientific’!

No matter. Conventional Medicine routinely dismisses personal experience of successful homeopathic treatment. The self-imposed task of homeophobic denialists is to deny and undermine such cases at any cost. Indeed, as will be seen, conventional medical practitioners, rather than admit that homeopathy has worked will often prefer to claim that they had ‘misdiagnosed’ cancer in the first place! In other words, they will go to any lengths to deny that homeopathy may have had an effect on the outcome!

Such denials are insulting to the individual concerned, effectively calling their experience, and their honesty into question. And it is also a grossly ‘unscientific’ response! After all, the task of real scientists is to explain what is seen to be happening in the world! It is certainly not to say that something happening in front of their eyes is cannot happening.

And what an increasing number of people see happening in the world today, and for the last 200 years, is that millions of people throughout the world, some suffering from serious disease, many diagnosed by ConMed as ‘incurable’, are benefitting from homeopathy every year.For the next blog in this series click here.

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Natural News has published two shocking articles in 2010 that showed just how far Big Pharma companies will go to sell drugs, to anyone, for any reason, and just how willing ConMed practitioners appear willing to go along with it - regardless of the cost to human health.

The huge financial power of the pharmacology industry dominates the way we look at health and medicine. Governments, national health services, the mainstream media, and large parts of the medical profession, seem determined to make us take ConMed drugs for any reason, at whatever cost, for any illness, and at any age.

These articles focus on infants and children, and so-called 'psychiatric' illness. Much the same can be written about any disease, any age-group, and is certainly not restricted to ConMed practice in the USA....

It is time to call a halt to this dangerous nonsense, and more, to challenge the conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media on these matters. There appears to be nothing that will prevent drug companies inventing ‘diseases’, exaggerating disease, and then selling dangerous drugs to an unsuspecting public, who are told virtually nothing by the mainstream media.

There are alternative ways to treating young children, who may (or may not) have mental health problems, which are both more effective, less expensive, and certainly much safer. Indeed, most homeopaths find it easier to deal with children, who generally have not be subjected to so many ConMed drugs, despite the increasing number of ‘routine’ vaccinations they are subjected to. For a consultation with a homeopath, go to www.a-r-h.org/findmembers/find.